MEGA-SORORITIES!!!!
Doing some rudimentary math with the stats provided above
would tell us that the average new member class size has jumped from just under
28 new members to just under 44 new members in the last 10 years, which means
that chapter size has likely mirrored the growth in new members. Based on the
data provided, the current average sorority chapter size nationally is 152
members (including new initiates).
Anecdotally, we know that on many campuses those numbers are
much, much higher. My last year at the University of Alabama, quota during
formal recruitment was over 90 and the average chapter size was in the
neighborhood of 320. I’ve heard that on some campuses, chapters are now pushing
400 members. 400!!! That’s insane!!!
I am not one to pound my chest and implore students to
consider what their founders would think, but I can’t help but wonder what our
sorority founders would think of chapters with 400 members. When they created
these organizations, is that what they had in mind?
What makes these super-sized sororities problematic is our
recent finding (read more about it here) that the most altruistic forms of
sisterhood – accountability and common purpose – begin declining once a
sorority chapter hits 150 members. Much has been written of the “Rule of 150” –
otherwise known as Dunbar’s Number. Malcom
Gladwell wrote about it in his bestselling book “The Tipping Point.” The basic
premise of the Rule of 150 is that once a group reaches 150 members, the social
network begins to break down and the group begins to destabilize, because, as
humans, we can only maintain a true sense of connection and accountability with
around 150 people. To my knowledge, our research is the first to statistically
show the rule of 150 actually playing out, which is kind of cool!
Mega-sororities are bad for sisterhood. Our research clearly
demonstrates that. Women in chapters over 150 members are less likely to feel a
deep sense of connection to the sisterhood, and those chapters struggle to
create a true sense of accountability and common purpose among members. Women
in these chapters are much more likely to see the sorority as a social outlet
or a place to go for support among a small group of sisters, but are less
likely than women in smaller chapters to ever “get” the higher levels of
sisterhood.
This should concern all of us involved in the “fraternal
movement,” because I don’t see the growth trend reversing or even slowing down
any time soon. Mega-sororities are here to stay.
If we can’t get rid of Mega-sororities, then we have to come
up with a way to make them better. In particular, we have to come with ways to
help members of mega-sororities connect with one another in more meaningful ways
that allow for higher degrees of personal accountability and create better
understanding of the common purpose of the organization.
The first thing we have to acknowledge is that the
traditional structure of sorority chapters is poorly suited to fostering
sisterhood in mega-sororities. In a chapter of 200+ members, not everyone will
have a chance to get truly involved and engaged in the work of the chapter. I
can’t tell you how many young women I worked with at Alabama who fell victim to
this phenomenon – they were involved student-leaders in high school, came to
Alabama expecting to have that same experience, joined a 300-member sorority,
and just became a face in the crowd. No meaningful leadership opportunities. No
opportunities to shine. No opportunities to connect with others in meaningful
ways. Many of them eventually drifted away from the sorority once the “fun”
aspect wore off, and tried to find meaningful engagement in other areas of
campus life.
The fact is, a traditional chapter structure just does not work in mega-sororities. With only 10 chapter officers, and perhaps another
dozen or so committee chairs, there are limited opportunities for meaningful
engagement for members of these groups. Chapter meetings, which should be an
opportunity for meaningful engagement and dialogue, become a series of
announcements about decisions that have already been made by the executive
board. Uninvolved members just become a
face in the crowd, rarely connecting with anyone outside of a small group of
members in their pledge class, and never feeling truly connected to the
majority of chapter members.
I propose that, in looking for alternative structures for
those chapters approaching mega-sorority status, we take a few pages from the
playbook of another growing entity in our country – megachurches.
A recent study by Baylor University showed that a growing
number of Americans now attend congregations with a weekly attendance of over
1,000 people. This research also suggests that people in large congregations
attend less frequently, give less financially and experience diminished
feelings of belonging relative to people in smaller congregations. In short –
megachurches are growing, and they are experiencing many of the same challenges
as mega-sororities.
So how have the successful megachurches managed this growth? What are
they doing to keep their members plugged in and engaged? How do organizations
with thousands of members maintain a sense of connection and belonging among
their members?
The answer is pretty simple –instead of making the big
Sunday morning service (i.e. chapter meeting) the focus of membership, the successful
megachurches make sure that the primary focus is on the activities of small
groups.
The research shows that there are multiple benefits to small
group-based churches. As one of the Baylor researchers noted, “Any type of
small group will benefit a church, whether it's a Sunday school, a service
group or a basketball league, because of the belonging and commitment they
foster.” Small groups foster a deeper sense of belonging, higher levels of commitment,
higher levels of personal accountability and, perhaps most importantly,
increased levels of trust among members. The result of all this? Higher levels
of participation, increased levels of financial support for the church, and
members who report more depth in their spiritual journey.
Nationally, a handful of sororities have toyed with some
programming designed around small groups, but none of these initiatives seem to
have gained much traction. There’s a reason for this – small groups can’t just
be seen as another of many programmatic offerings for already over-programmed
sorority members. As the Baylor study notes, "Small groups are the center
of the church -- not just one of many programs.” In the churches that do this right, small
groups are at the center of everything.
Instead of adding small groups on as an optional program,
small groups need to become the center of chapter life in mega-sororities. Instead of weekly chapter meetings, bi-weekly
small group meetings (one to discuss chapter business, and another focused
around sisterhood). The entire chapter should meet monthly or on an as-needed
basis. The leadership structure of the chapter
should center around these small groups. Each group should have a leader, a
social/sisterhood chair, a treasurer (with their own budget), a standards
board, a scholastics chair, a community service/philanthropy chair, along with
the appropriate committees. Each small group should be empowered to plan its
own events, meet on its own schedule, and spend its own resources.
The move to a small-group chapter model will not be without
its challenges, and the model I have described above still leaves us with many
questions that need to be answered. Questions like:
Along what lines should the small groups be organized? There
are literally thousands of ways you could go with this one. Fixed groups to which
new members are assigned during their first semester of membership and remain
in the entire time? Open groups based on interest that people can join and
leave as their interests change? Groups organized around organizational values?
Groups organized around hobbies and interests? Groups organized around
different service initiatives or different academic interests? Randomly
assigned groups with no real rhyme or reason? Any or all of these could work,
and we would need to do some research in order to figure out what seems to work
best.
How big should the small groups be? The research here
appears to be inconclusive, and this would vary depending on the structure
(i.e. fixed, closed groups or open, interest-based groups). More research would
need to be done to determine an “ideal” small group size.
What “overall” chapter offices would still be needed? Again,
I’m not sure about the answer to this one. To be certain, a chapter president
would still be a necessity. Chapters would probably still need a social chair,
a treasurer, and the full bevy of recruitment officers. Beyond that, we would
just need to experiment to see what is best handled among small groups, and
what needs to have a chapter-wide focus.
How inclusive/exclusive would these small groups be? The
research on this topic is murky. According to the Baylor study, “a risk for
small groups is crossing the line from intimacy to cliquishness. By constantly
adding new members, you can't go very deep, because it takes time to build
relationships and trust. But a closed group, while it's good for intimacy,
lends itself to being inward-focused.” The right balance would be necessary in
order to promote sisterhood across these small groups, providing opportunities
for interaction outside of the small group, while still placing a sense of
intimacy within the small group setting. The Baylor study suggests this can occur
by regularly forming new groups, or by limiting the time period for which
groups meet. For example, groups might exist for one year and then be expected
to split or reconfigure themselves in some other way every year.
Conclusion
As I read the research on small groups in megachurches, I
was struck by the similarity between how members or churches describe their
experience, and the language that students have used to describe brotherhood
and sisterhood during our research in this area. Church members spoke of
belonging, commitment, vulnerability, accountability and trust in the same ways
that fraternity and sorority members discuss the brotherhood and sisterhood in
their chapters. I think we can learn a great deal from megachurches, both in
terms of how they keep people connected, and in how they inspire members to
live out their values.
I am excited to know that a few national sorority headquarters
are beginning to tackle the issue of mega-sororities, investigating new models
and researching how the experience in those organizations can be improved. I think
this work will go a long way in helping align our members’ experiences with the
stated purpose and values of our organizations, even in chapters with 400
members. I challenge every sorority to begin investigating ways to make
membership in these chapters something that can still be values-based and
create real feelings of accountability, belonging and shared purpose, because mega-sororities
are here to stay.
